Under a campaign that pays per verified view, the platform does not change your rate. It changes how many views you get, which amounts to the same thing in practice but leads to a different decision: you are not choosing where the money is, you are choosing where the reach is.
Where clips travel furthest
- →TikTok — still the most willing to show a small account to a large audience. Highest ceiling for a cold start.
- →YouTube Shorts — enormous volume, and the strongest at surfacing older clips weeks after posting.
- →Instagram Reels — reliable reach, and better than the others at converting viewers into followers.
- →Snapchat Spotlight — inconsistent, occasionally enormous, and largely ignored by clippers, which is itself an argument for trying it.
- →X — smaller reach, but disproportionate influence when a clip lands with the right audience.
Why cross-posting is the actual answer
The same clip costs nothing extra to post in three places. Feeds do not compete for the same viewers, and reach on one platform is close to independent of reach on another. A clip that dies on TikTok can do well on Shorts, and there is no way to know in advance which it will be.
The only constraint is what a campaign counts. If the brief specifies TikTok and Instagram, views elsewhere earn nothing, and posting there is audience-building rather than income.
Platform monetisation, separately
Beyond campaigns, the platforms pay their own creator funds, and those figures are much lower than campaign rates — commonly a few cents to a dollar per thousand views, with eligibility thresholds. Campaign work generally pays several times better per view, which is why clippers treat platform monetisation as a bonus rather than the plan.
The practical rule
Post to every platform the campaign counts, then to the others if it costs you nothing but an upload. Judge platforms on where your clips travel, not on where you have heard the money is.
Post to every platform from one place.
See scheduling